Re: why is site-lisp placed before the default load path?

[Robert Weiner <rsw@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1168 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:07 PM, James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> wrote:

> >>>>> "RW" == Robert Weiner <rsw@gnu.org> writes:
>
> RW> ​If a package unintentionally shadows/overrides a standard/core Emacs
> RW> library, then it is the package that is broken and needs to be fixed.
> If
> RW> instead the behavior is intentional then that is what the current
> load-path
> RW> order is designed to allow.
>
> The point is that if sub directories are nto automatically included, it is
> easier to  manage things.  Especially when using one's dist's packaging.
>

​I can see where you might have test subdirectories or others that you
would not want included in load-path.  If you want to justify a change
though, you should give one or more clear examples of where the default
behavior is the major cause of a problem.
​


>
> I had to make substantial changes to my .emacs when the auto sub dirs
> was added to fix all of the damage that caused.


​Be explicit.  Don't just say damage.  Give precise examples of what
happened and what was required to fix it so everyone can understand what
you are talking​

​about.

Bob
​

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2573 bytes --]